JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. VIJAY MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P -1) whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short), was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Vijay Mehta -respondent No. 1 filed a suit against respondents No. 2 and 3 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.4.2007. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 1.10.2013. Aggrieved against the said judgment/decree, respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying that he be impleaded as defendant in the suit being a necessary party.

(3.) THE case of the applicant was that Atma Singh, grandfather of the applicant, was owner of the property in dispute. During his lifetime, Atma Singh gave the property in question to his sons Rajinder Singh and Harmesh Singh. Jaswinder Singh filed a false and frivolous suit against Surinder Kaur and others on the basis of forged and fabricated Will dated 16.11.2003 and got a collusive decree dated 25.1.2007 in his favour. The suit had not been contested by Surinder Kaur on behalf of the petitioner. On the basis of the said decree, Jaswinder Singh in collusion with Harmesh Singh, executed the agreement to sell dated 18.4.2007 in favour of Vijay Mehta. Petitioner was not bound by the decree dated 25.1.2007. Hence, petitioner was a necessary party in the suit filed by Vijay Mehta for specific performance of agreement to sell in question.